Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 5

< January 4	January 6 >

January 5

Template:St. John Arena Concerts

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge with St. John Arena. If someone wants to split it off into a separate article, go right ahead. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St. John Arena Concerts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think this page is necessary. The St. John Arena page may list any notable firsts but this page is superfluous. See Madison Square Garden for an example of a venue page and Events at Madison Square Garden for an example of a notable event page. Also, this page has no introduction and cites no sources. Rwalker (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to article space. It's not a template. Mhiji 22:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to article space (without redirect) and update link at St. John Arena. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Mhiji, possibly to "List of St. John Arena Concerts". Also, there are articles for two different St. John Arenas -- which does this apply to? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's this one, since the user that created this template also linked to it from there. Mhiji 05:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Final Fantasy characters

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Incorrect nomination. Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 5#Template:Final Fantasy character. Mhiji 22:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 13#Template:Final Fantasy character. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Final Fantasy characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template solely uses in-uniserse information, usually trivial in nature. Often the info is also input without any attempts for verification.陣内 _Jinnai 21:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The info isn't in the templates! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The info isn't, but its just there for trivial info that goes against WP:WAF. What a character's blood type is not nessasary to understanding the basics of the character.陣内 _Jinnai 21:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Per Jinnai's reason.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? Which of the speedy deletion criteria does this fall under? Mhiji 21:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jinnai, did you mean to nominate Template:Final Fantasy character instead? You've added a TfD tag to that one but not this one. I assume it's that one from your last comment? If so it's probably best closing this and relisting. Mhiji 22:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dod. i need to get going though so if someone else could do so...陣内 _Jinnai 22:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WPBanner with assessment and no articles being assessed. Links to sandbox subpage of creator's userspace. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's still basically sandbox while I work out what I'm doing with it. Give me another couple of weeks to figure out what I'm doing with it, and if I don't need it I'll delete it then. The Land (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment as an outsider. Inherently, I can imagine the NMM being capable of supporting a BM-style (pseudo)project in the long term. However experience suggests that you need more than one person for these things to work, and I'm not sure there's much evidence of that just yet? You might be better off doing something under the aegis of the WP:WikiProject Transport/Maritime transport task force (fka Maritime Trades), or at least recruiting there (and potentially in places like WP Ships and WP London). History suggests that you're generally better off with a number of people in roughly the right place than a perfectly-focused project/pseudo-project that has only one or two participants. Having said that, I don't think there's any great need to delete right now, I'd give it a couple of months to see what happens with it - fleshing out WPBanners is inherently a time-consuming process. Le Deluge (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace until it is ready. 134.253.26.4 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NavigationRepYears

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge, with the possibility of further debate concerning the encyclopedic value of the merged template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NavigationRepYears (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

French Republican Calendar/Y1

French Republican Calendar/Y2

French Republican Calendar/Y3

French Republican Calendar/Y4

French Republican Calendar/Y5

French Republican Calendar/Y6

French Republican Calendar/Y7

French Republican Calendar/Y8

French Republican Calendar/Y9

French Republican Calendar/Y10

French Republican Calendar/Y11

French Republican Calendar/Y13

French Republican Calendar/Y14

French Republican Calendar/Yx-1

French Republican Calendar/Yx+1

French Republican Calendar/Yx

French Republican Calendar/Y12

This pseudo-navigation system links only to a group of template pages wrongly placed in articlespace which show the calendar for a given year in the French Republican Calendar. These are wholly unnecessary (we need not have articles which consist of nothing but calendars) and linked to from nowhere in the encyclopedia but through this template. Co-nominating all the pages as well, as while they're currently in mainspace they're really just templates and have no purpose in articlespace (especially as they're pretending to be sub-pages). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they're really templates, let's move them to template-space, as long as the calendar will continue to function. --Coemgenus 13:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates which have no transclusions are pointless. Moreover, no argument has yet been made as to why we need document the entire calendar for each year that the FRC was used: we do no such thing for the myriad of other calendars used across history. I appreciate that a lot of work went into these, but we are not supposed to act as a primary reference point and that's precisely what these are doing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I misunderstood. Having an article that just shows what the calendar looked like in, say 1799, is not particularly necessary. There is some small utility in having a convenient place to compare dates when reading articles about subjects that took place in that year in France, but I don't know that it justifies an entire template. So, yes, I might be convinced to delete the individual years and the template linking them. But you don't have a problem with {{Republican Calendar}}, do you? I find that one quite useful and not irrelevant. Coemgenus 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that template serves a useful and illustrative purpose in our encyclopedia. That does not mean, of course, that we need to contrive uses for it, which is rather how I see the pages nominated for deletion above. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that I understand fully the discussion (a nice way to barge in!) but I find the templates corresponding to the years that cover the French Revolution extremely useful as many texts of that period give the dates using only the Revolutionary calendar, which was even used during the Commune de Paris in 1871 - so I would keep them with that of the current year.

--Frania W. (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but whether or not people are using Wikipedia as a primary source it is expressly not what we're here for. Perhaps Wikipedia Commons might be a better home for these, or elsewhere on the wikiweb. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above seems to have been deleted. --Coemgenus 11:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must be something wrong with your computer : it's all here for me to see.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said "below", not "above". Some editor deleted the discussion below (which is related to this one) while adding a new subpage. --Coemgenus 13:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merci,Coemgenus, I understand & am following the discussion below.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CURRENTFRCMONTHNAME

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge, with the possibility of further debate concerning the encyclopedic value of the merged template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CURRENTFRCMONTHNAME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CURRENTFRCDAYNAME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CURRENTFRCDAY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CURRENTFRCYEAR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CURRENTFRCTIME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LOCALREPYEAR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LOCALREPDAY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LOCALREPMONTHNAME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LOCALREPDAYNAME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LOCALREPTIME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:RepDnr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:RepDnr/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:RepDnr/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:RepDate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While I'm sure this is a neat trick, these are never going to find use on the encyclopedia. Only current mainspace use is in the {{NavigationRepYears}} system, also under TfD; these are used for figuring out the current year in {{FrenchRepublicanCalendar}} (handful of userspace uses), but the logic could easily be rolled into that template as these are deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're aiming at here. If you think these pages can be condensed into one template that will achieve the same effect, by all means merge them. Better one template than many, I suppose. But if you're proposing to delete them and not replace them, I'd be inclined to keep them all. They do serve a purpose in the FRC article. --Coemgenus 13:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only purpose that any of these templates have as regards the French Republican Calendar article is to populate the little box which tells the reader what day it would be were the FRC still in operation. This is trivia. If (and that's a big "if") this is deemed to be important enough to keep in that article (and I'd dispute that), the entire logic required to work it out can be moved into {{FrenchRepublicanCalendar}} (which I am not proposing be deleted). It is not necessary to split the logic in question across over a dozen different templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merging everything into {{FrenchRepublicanCalendar}} makes sense. When I wrote those templates several years ago, they were the first I'd ever done, so the coding (even as improved by User:LexTH, who is no longer active) is likely not the best. I'm still not good at that stuff, but I would support your efforts to consolidate the templates into one. As long as we agree that {{FrenchRepublicanCalendar}} should not be deleted and that it should continue to function, I think we're in agreement. --Coemgenus 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The templates you want to delete serve a very useful purpose to anyone who wants to understand the FRC. If that's not you, that's OK, but there is no reason to delete all this without a compelling cause. The FR calendar is a complex topic which requires a fair amount of study to comprehend. Seeing it in operation is not trivia or a "neat trick", it's instruction. These templates lay out a whole monthly calendar in day/week format, making conceptualization infinitely clearer for any student. (Coemgenus, it seems to me that the nominator has no intent to merge or consolidate these templates, only to delete them, so please reconsider your assent.) SteveStrummer (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll thank you not to second-guess my motives. I spent a considerable amount of time today working on all these templates in order to make it easier to merge them should that be the outcome here, and one reason I did so was because I do find the calendar interesting but don't necessarily see that having a completely overwrought conversion system which allows people to identify quickly what, say, 22 November 2007 would have been in the French Republican Calendar is within our remit as a tertiary source. In its present form, this code is too opaque to serve much use as an educational tool anyway; merging the logic into one clearly-designed template would do a lot to help with that, and I've already started the work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I apologize if you have been offended. I did not mean to imply anything about you or your motives. My remark to Coemgenus was made simply because he seemed to be agreeing to something that did not exist, i.e. an offer to modify the templates. Like myself, he seems to believe that it is fine to consolidate and streamline the code without discarding any of the existing functionality. I have read and reread your first two posts and I still don't see any such offer there: if your third post is indeed such an offer, can you please elaborate? SteveStrummer (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The conversion logic has some value as it means we don't have to hard-code all the useful FRC templates. The pseudo-keywords such as {{LOCALREPMONTHNAME}} have no such purpose; they see exactly one mainspace use (a trivial mention of what the current date would be in the FRC) and other than that are used exclusively on userspace. The template system is not supposed to be used for playthings. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The calendar converter is not a "plaything". People don't play with it: they use it to translate the multitude of significant dates from one of the most-studied epochs in human history. As a tool for learning, it is infinitely more valuable than mere prose for visualizing and understanding the logic behind a complex system. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your interpretation of the FRC. The common interpretation is (and I hope you don't find this presumptious) that it is a radical alternative dating system primarily of note due to its use during an important period in French history. An alternative interpretation is that it is a perfectly valid way of looking at the present age. I would politely suggest that this is a fringe view that we need not cater for, especially with a half-dozen interrelated templates which serve literally no purpose other than to allow people to check what date it would be if the French were still using their revolutionary dating system. The core code which {{FrenchRepublicanCalendar}} relies upon is all that is required to power the existing templates that we use on articlespace, and I am not proposing that it be deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sydney TV weekday schedule

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sydney TV weekday schedule (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, started then apparently abandoned 29 January 2010, no blue links. EmanWilm (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nu useful use. Reh man 00:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Prolintas Expressways

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prolintas Expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded for 3 items Imzadi 1979 → 01:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ delete. Used in articles and no alternative offered. -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an alternative - a category. For such few items, this template is a waste. --Rs chen 7754 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I confused the info box with this navbox. The navbox can go (there is even another navbox that duplicates it!). Changed opinion by striking above. Same for other templates in this series. -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Gamuda Expressways

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gamuda Expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded for so few items. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ delete (see above, 1st T) Five articles, no alternative. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an alternative - a category. For such few items, this template is a waste. --Rs chen 7754 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MetaCorp Expressway Networks

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MetaCorp Expressway Networks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded for 2 items. Imzadi 1979 → 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ delete (see above, 1st T). Used in articles and no alternative offered. -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an alternative - a category. For such few items, this template is a waste. --Rs chen 7754 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MRCB Expressway Networks

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MRCB Expressway Networks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded for 2 items Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ delete (see above, 1st T). Used in articles and no alternative offered. -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an alternative - a category. For such few items, this template is a waste. --Rs chen 7754 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:IJM Expressways

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IJM Expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary for so few items. Imzadi 1979 → 00:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ delete (see above, 1st T). Six articles, no alternative given. -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an alternative - a category. For such few items, this template is a waste. --Rs chen 7754 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:East Coast Expressways

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East Coast Expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary for 2 articles. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ delete (see above, 1st T). Used in articles and no alternative offered. Or: what do you do with the articles? -DePiep (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an alternative - a category. For such few items, this template is a waste. --Rs chen 7754 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cyp

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete, and potentially redirect to {{CYP}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cyp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by ~~{{unicode}}~~ {{lang|el|<text>}}. Lucida Sans Unicode is not the only Greek font, nor is it available to all Wikipedia readers. ~~{{unicode}} does a much better job.~~ — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: not to be confused with {{CYP}} (flag), which should stay. -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request: nom, could you make & check the {{unicode}}-replacement in the two current article links? Would make a cleanup & a good point. (I cannot check that script). -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that the best replacement for this template is in fact {{lang}} with the "el" (Greek) parameter. I have carried out a replacement, and updated the nom accordingly. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (=~~keep~~ delete) since the alternative works (btw, don't we do a redirect for the Talk-pages?). -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC) oops support=delete -DePiep (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Motorsport in the UK

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Motorsport in the UK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Considering my opinion have and will never change since the previous nomination, which resulted a keep (one feeble keep vote by the template creator) because I didn't bother to promote this nomination, I'll nominate this again for deletion since nothing have been improved as the UK is not called the motorsport capital of the world for nothing. My reasoning is as follows.

Aside the "professional" national series (which the article creator is unable to define through his edits and what he has selected for his templates), we got an indiscriminate mish-mash of club level series, international series with a round held on British soil, individual non-championship races and "professional" series that consists of a number of amateurs, all this regardless if it involve four wheels, two wheels, on land, air and water, etc; plus the definition of what professional is nowadays becoming vague. Therefore having an inclusion criteria for this template is becoming difficult.

Even if this template consists of bluelinked articles consisting of a wide variety of motorsports (as this template (in its current state) covered only a small portion of), it will do nothing to stop it from getting too cluttered for its own good as British motorsport events and championships have come and gone thoughout its history, so has professional series and making inclusion criteria will do nothing to stem that overflow. Donnie Park (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that this template fall foul of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Donnie Park (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maintenance or inclusion issues don't justify deletion. Thrash it out on the talk page of the template or at an appropriate WikiProject. You've failed to give any compelling reason to delete. Fences&Windows 20:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason why the problems mentioned by nom cannot be overcome & improved. Probably only needs some crisp criteria for inclusion (e.g. re historical and professional racings; maybe a split). Also, the title itself is naturally convincing the need for the navbox. -DePiep (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Wild Thornberrys

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Wild Thornberrys (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, links only four articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my time on Wikipedia has been spent almost exclusively reading rather than editing recently and so I don't feel particularly qualified to give more than a comment. The reason I created the navbox is that some users (such as myself) favour them as a navigational tool over lists/categories. Having the navbox means that someone reading the article has all relevant links gathered in one place on finishing the article and does not have to go back through the article to find them, it also allows them to navigate through the articles in a topic without jumping between a list/category page. I'm not saying that every page needs a navbox but even those which are small in size can streamline the experience of exploring a topic on Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template and convert contents of template to a category. I recommend calling the new category Category:The Wild Thornberrys. There appears to be enough content to create a category, but the template can be dispensed with. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Пневмония

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete - I shall be gentle and call it a "test page". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Пневмония (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The text of this template means "pneumonia virus" in Russian. Not helpful here at enwiki. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quite simply it's not a template, it's just text. Mhiji 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G6. -- œ ^™ 16:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.